Perceptual learning following changes in the frequency-to-electrode assignment with the Nucleus-22 cochlear implant.

The goal of the present study was to investigate the time course of adaptation by experienced cochlear implant users to a shifted frequency-to-electrode assignment in their speech processors. Speech recognition performance of three Nucleus-22 cochlear implant users was measured over a 3-month period, during which the implant listeners continuously wore "experimental" speech processors that were purposely shifted by 2-4 mm in terms of the frequency-to-electrode assignment relative to their normal processor. Baseline speech performance was measured with each subject's clinically assigned speech processor just prior to implementation of the experimental processor. Baseline speech performance was measured again after the 3-month test period, immediately following the reinstallation of the clinically assigned processor settings. Speech performance with the experimental processor was measured four times during the first week, and weekly thereafter over the 3-month period. Results showed that the experimental processor produced significantly lower performance on all measures of speech recognition immediately following implementation. Over the 3-month test period, consonant and HINT sentence recognition with the experimental processors gradually approached a performance level comparable to but still significantly below the baseline and postexperiment measures made with the clinically assigned processor. However, vowel and TIMIT sentence recognition with the experimental processors remained far below the level of the baseline measures even at the end of the 3-month experimental period. There was no significant change in performance with the clinically assigned processor before or after fitting with the experimental processor. The results suggest that a long-time exposure to a new pattern of stimulation may not be able to compensate for the deficit in performance caused by a 2-4-mm shift in the tonotopic location of stimulation, at least within a 3-month period.

[1]  W. Kalender,et al.  Determination of the position of nucleus cochlear implant electrodes in the inner ear. , 1994, The American journal of otology.

[2]  G. A. Miller,et al.  Erratum: An Analysis of Perceptual Confusions Among Some English Consonants [J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 27, 339 (1955)] , 1955 .

[3]  Q J Fu,et al.  Effects of noise and spectral resolution on vowel and consonant recognition: acoustic and electric hearing. , 1998, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[4]  S. Soli,et al.  Development of the Hearing in Noise Test for the measurement of speech reception thresholds in quiet and in noise. , 1994, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[5]  S. Waltzman,et al.  Long‐Term effects of multichannel cochlear implant usage , 1986, The Laryngoscope.

[6]  M W Skinner,et al.  Effect of frequency boundary assignment on speech recognition with the speak speech-coding strategy. , 1995, The Annals of otology, rhinology & laryngology. Supplement.

[7]  Q J Fu,et al.  Effect of acoustic dynamic range on phoneme recognition in quiet and noise by cochlear implant users. , 1999, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[8]  D. D. Greenwood A cochlear frequency-position function for several species--29 years later. , 1990, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[9]  M Pelizzone,et al.  Within-patient longitudinal speech reception measures with continuous interleaved sampling processors for ineraid implanted subjects. , 1999, Ear and hearing.

[10]  P Seligman,et al.  Architecture of the Spectra 22 speech processor. , 1995, The Annals of otology, rhinology & laryngology. Supplement.

[11]  A. Faulkner,et al.  Adaptation by normal listeners to upward spectral shifts of speech: implications for cochlear implants. , 1999, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[12]  J K Shallop,et al.  Speech recognition performance over time with the Spectra 22 speech processor. , 1995, The Annals of otology, rhinology & laryngology. Supplement.

[13]  G. Loeb,et al.  Speech recognition performance over time with the Clarion cochlear prosthesis. , 1995, The Annals of otology, rhinology & laryngology. Supplement.

[14]  C M Reed,et al.  Intelligibility of frequency-lowered speech produced by a channel vocoder. , 1993, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[15]  G. A. Miller,et al.  An Analysis of Perceptual Confusions Among Some English Consonants , 1955 .

[16]  William M. Rabinowitz,et al.  Better speech recognition with cochlear implants , 1991, Nature.

[17]  R. Shannon,et al.  Recognition of spectrally degraded and frequency-shifted vowels in acoustic and electric hearing. , 1999, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[18]  G. Wang,et al.  In vivo measures of cochlear length and insertion depth of nucleus cochlear implant electrode arrays. , 1998, The Annals of otology, rhinology & laryngology. Supplement.

[19]  B J Gantz,et al.  Performance over time of adult patients using the Ineraid or nucleus cochlear implant. , 1997, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[20]  R V Shannon,et al.  Effects of amplitude nonlinearity on phoneme recognition by cochlear implant users and normal-hearing listeners. , 1998, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[21]  C R George,et al.  Preliminary findings of the new Spectra 22 speech processor with first-time cochlear implant users. , 1995, The Annals of otology, rhinology & laryngology. Supplement.

[22]  M W Skinner,et al.  Identification of speech by cochlear implant recipients with the multipeak (MPEAK) and spectral peak (SPEAK) speech coding strategies II. Consonants. , 1996, Ear and hearing.

[23]  Z. Vanat,et al.  Patient performance over eighteen months with the Ineraid intracochlear implant. , 1995, The Annals of otology, rhinology & laryngology. Supplement.

[24]  R V Shannon,et al.  Speech recognition as a function of the number of electrodes used in the SPEAK cochlear implant speech processor. , 1997, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[25]  R. Shannon,et al.  Effects of electrode configuration and frequency allocation on vowel recognition with the Nucleus-22 cochlear implant. , 1999, Ear and hearing.

[26]  M. Svirsky,et al.  Auditory learning and adaptation after cochlear implantation: a preliminary study of discrimination and labeling of vowel sounds by cochlear implant users. , 2001, Acta oto-laryngologica.

[27]  M F Dorman,et al.  Changes in Speech Intelligibility as a Function of Time and Signal Processing Strategy for an Ineraid Patient Fitted with Continuous Interleaved Sampling (CIS) Processors , 1997, Ear and hearing.

[28]  A Boothroyd,et al.  Speech recognition with reduced spectral cues as a function of age. , 2000, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[29]  J. Hillenbrand,et al.  Acoustic characteristics of American English vowels. , 1994, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.